ML20215J757
| ML20215J757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1987 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3836 OL-1, NUDOCS 8706250100 | |
| Download: ML20215J757 (8) | |
Text
_-
f(' f.
).
.4 DOCKETED U5HRC Dated: ' June-19, 1987 UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA.
'87 JUN 22 P3 :35 before the grrn :-
vuod NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION-
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPA'NY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET <ll.
)
50-148-OL-1 j
)
i i
(Seabrook-Station, Units 1
)
(Onsite Emergency andL2)-
)
Planning and Safety
)
Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO MOTIONS FOR-STAY OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL _ DECISION FILED BY~ SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
-JAMES'M. SHANNON AND TOWN OF HAMPTON Under~ date of June' 9,
- 1987, The Seacoast Anti-1 l
Pollution League, Attorney General James M.
Shannon of The-Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Town of Hampton-l l
(hereafter referred to as "Movants")
filed a
Motion for leave to, supplement their stay motions filed on May 14, 1987, May 13, 1987 and May 22, 1987 respectively.
The purpose of the supplementation was to bring to the attention of the commission a portion of a document filed
)
.in this 3leensing proceeding before the Board dealing with the so-called offsite emergency planning issues in response to certain interrogatories posed therein.
The document was filed'by the-Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as appendix A
to answers to interrogatories and sets out
-certain current positions of Region I of FEMA with respect 8706250100 870619 ADOCK 0 % 4j3 g g;
- DR:
L e
to various contentions in litigatien before the cognizant Licensing Board.
In particular, the Movants call the Commission's attention ~to a position taken by FEMA Region I with respect to the ability of persons on the beaches near Seabrook Station to.
be protected in the event of a radiological emergency.
The essential position taken by FEMA Region I is that FEMA is required by this Commission to assume an accident which results in a
major release of radiation within one-half hour of' the onset of accident conditions which release is. transported to the beaches in one half hour; that the ETE for the beaches at Seabrook shows that three and one half hours are needed to cicar the beaches and four hours and fifty minutes to five hours and fifty minutes are needed to evacuate all the population on a peak summer day (assuming good weather) from the EPZ; that current plans for the State of New Hampshire do not contemplate sheltering the beach populations; and therefore, snys FEMA there will occur some radiological exposure and injury at Seabrook in the event of this highly
.unlikely event.
FEMA goes on to allege in essence that residents must be fully protected against this possibility of exposure.
1.'n t i l such time as this protection is
- provided, says
- FEMA, Region I,
it must under current j
regulations disapprove the New Hampshire State Plan.
Focussing on this FEMA Region I position, the Movants 2
l 1
l l
<a s'ay upon'the ask in substance that this Commission place a issuance of any low power license for Seabrook' until. full litigation of the offsite emergency plans.
The Commission is asked to distinguish Shoreham because the position of FENA Region
.I presents a "truly insuperable obstacle" to the licensing of Seabrook at full power.
The Applicants have no objection to the Motion insofar as it seeks to have the commission take administrative nottee of the FEMA answers to
' i n't e r ro ga t o r i e s in a
proceeding before a Licensing Board of this Agency.
The
- Commission has an absolute right to do that.
The Applicants do, however, disagree, for the reasons set out below with the Conclusions that this agency is being asked to reach as a result of this FEMA Region I filing.
The FEMA Region I position is based upon an incorrect-i understanding of the applicable law.
What FEMA Region I l
has done is convert the Emergency Planning Regulations and Guidance of this Commission into a standard of zero risk.
In essence, it is the position of FEMA Region I that it must be demonstrated for every nuclear power plant site that in the event of an extremely onlikely: major fast breaking accident which results in a
.najor release in one half hour, it must be demonstrated that the emergency plan will essentially guarantee zero risk to the general public.
This was never the intent of this Commission when the i
I currently existing Emergency Planning Regulations were 3
1 e
0-1 adopted.1 Less than' four months ago, this Commission stated, in a notice.of rulemaking:
"The existing emergency planning regulations does (sic) not require that plans achieve any preestablished minimum dose savings in the event of an accident.
For
- example, approved emergency plans with full State and local governmental cooperation have highly variable evacuation time estimates ranging from several hours to over ten hours and the projected dose savings for such plans would vary widely.
Thus the re g u la t i on.- is inherently variable in effect and there are no bright-line mandatory minimum projected dose savings or evacuation time limites (sic) which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency plans in the existing regulation.
Moreover the dose savings achieved by implementation of an emergency plan under adverse conditions e.g.,
during or following heavy snow, could be substantially less than under perfect conditions.
This variability is consistent with a
concept or approach to emergency planning and preparedness that is flexible rather than rigid."
Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where Sate and/or Local Governments Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning, 52 Fed Reg. 6980, 6982 (March 6, 1987).
The FEMA Region I position is wholly at odds with the above quoted interpretation of NRC own Regulations by this LIndeed this Commission has stated: "The Commission presumes as does FEN.4 that offsite individuals in the EPZ may, as a result of a nuclear plant accident, either become externally contaminated with radioactive materials or become exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, or both.
Southern Cali fornia Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 534-35 (1983).
l 4
l
4 4'
f.
\\gency.
As far as we are aware, the FEMA position has not been adopted by the Staff of this agency.
Indeed it is the position of the Staff member of the Seabrook Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) that the New Hampshire Plan for Seabrook is adequate with respect to the beaches.
This was evidenced by Appendix D filed by FE>lA Region I along with the Answers to Interrogatories involved.2 In light of all of the foregoing, we respectfully suggest that the current FEMA. Region I
position does not represent "a
truly insuperable obstacle" to the full power licensing of Seabrook.
)
Respectfully submitted,
]',s/_
- - wr vf
" Thomas G.
Ifignan, Jr.
~
George H.
Lewald l{athryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for -1pplican ts r The Staff position has been rewritten since the issuance of the letter which was actually attached as Appendix D.
Iloweve r,
that rewrite affected only some of the reasoning and bases used; it did not affect the conclusion referenced in the text. See Letter from Robert J.
- Bores, Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards to Edward A.
Thomas (June 4,
1987).
This letter was served upon the Licensing Board and all parties by letter from the NRC Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney dated June 12, 1987.
5
a 0%a%U,7 l
Nt.
v CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 JUN 22 P3 35 I, Kathryn A.
Selleck,.one of the attorneys for the i
Applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 19, lp 8,7;, - I made service of the within document by mailing copi4'sifiit, 1
y thereof, postage prepaid, to:
PFr MX Lando W.
- Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-Washington, DC 20555 James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Kenneth M. Carr l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
L
. Washington, DC 20555 l-I Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Commission J
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Gary J. Edles Mr. Ed Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Region I Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post 1
'U.S.
NuclearLRegulatory Office and Court House I
Commission Post Office Square Washington,.IX1 20555 Boston, MA 02109 1
' Administrative Judge Sheldon J.
Robert Carrigg, Chairman I
Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office Bocrd Panel Atlantic Avenue
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, NH 03862 l
Commission i
Washington, DC 20555 l
L Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20009 l
h
+
a' Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General i
Board Panel George Dana-Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E.
Turk, Esquire j
Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director j
Commission' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal. Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon j
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory 116 Lowell Street j
Commission P.O.
Box 516 j
Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 j
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr.'J. P. Nadeau Assistant Att rney General Selectmen's Office Department ot the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta,.ME 04333 1
Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire j
Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 1
Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros j
U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter S. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 )
i
1 4
Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S'.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA- 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Silverglate, Gertner, Baker McKay, Murphy and Graham Fine, Good & Mizner 100 Main Street 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 29 A Kathryn A.
Selleck l
1
)
l I
I 1
)
i '
J